Solutions for funding the Arts

[VanceMack]

I'm mixed on the whole funding for the arts thing. I do see a value in some of the PBS broadcasting but think others can and should be self sustaining. Take Sesame Street for example. They are a commercial juggernaut worth about $400,000,000.00. Why do they need public funding? And since there are so many rules regarding the airwaves and cable/satellite companies, couldnt the providers be required to provide public access channels? Couldnt the equipment used to record and broadcast be donated and funded via private charity? And if they responsibly show a bottom line that is still deficit, then the State (first) or fed (as a last resort) could kick in operating cash.

Conversely...how much of THIS kind of **** gets public funding?

Modern Art: Man screaming for 2.5 hours

Granted....thats Serbia...but we have the same kind of publicly funded inane performance art in America. Performing Arts should be funded locally...with money budgeted and paid for by the local recipients.

 

[Mr Person]

I think we need to look at our much more expensive programs before we take the axe to stuff that won't make a meaningful difference, even apart from being a strong defender for the arts. We should have top-quality museums, libraries, educational broadcasting, educational radio, etc. We can afford it and the arts are good.

I would not fund the man screaming on the floor exhibit, however, because **** that, that's why.



For example, I certainly agree we should remain very strong militarily, but we outspend all our potential enemies and a lot of allies combined by a long shot.

But do we really need another 10% thrown at it, when the probability of getting into a superpower v. superpower war is tiny and would likely end up with people slinging nukes until we're all dead anyway? Meanwhile, we can't kill all the terrorists even while spending $600,000,000,000/year. Sooooooo......why increase military spending if we're running such big deficits? ISIS doesn't give a ****, and our big enemies are already deterred from direct conflict.

Makes me gag to think of balking at $400mil for the arts while dropping another $60b or so on extra air carriers and more things that go PEW PEW PEW. This is especially true when you have various reports of the Pentagon burying tremendous amounts of waste. I mean, we're going to spend THAT much more on the military and then something less than 1% in size is the problem?

ie, Pentagon Reportedly Buried Study Exposing $125 Billion in Waste | Military.com

(I don't know the source but do know I saw various similar reports from credible sources in the past, and really don't want to sit here at the computer much longer. One cited much higher numbers, albeit over a lot longer time)

 

[joG]

I think we need to look at our much more expensive programs before we take the axe to stuff that won't make a meaningful difference, even apart from being a strong defender for the arts. We should have top-quality museums, libraries, educational broadcasting, educational radio, etc. We can afford it and the arts are good.

I would not fund the man screaming on the floor exhibit, however, because **** that, that's why.



For example, I certainly agree we should remain very strong militarily, but we outspend all our potential enemies and a lot of allies combined by a long shot.

But do we really need another 10% thrown at it, when the probability of getting into a superpower v. superpower war is tiny and would likely end up with people slinging nukes until we're all dead anyway? Meanwhile, we can't kill all the terrorists even while spending $600,000,000,000/year. Sooooooo......why increase military spending if we're running such big deficits? ISIS doesn't give a ****, and our big enemies are already deterred from direct conflict.

Makes me gag to think of balking at $400mil for the arts while dropping another $60b or so on extra air carriers and more things that go PEW PEW PEW. This is especially true when you have various reports of the Pentagon burying tremendous amounts of waste. I mean, we're going to spend THAT much more on the military and then something less than 1% in size is the problem?

ie, Pentagon Reportedly Buried Study Exposing $125 Billion in Waste | Military.com

(I don't know the source but do know I saw various similar reports from credible sources in the past, and really don't want to sit here at the computer much longer. One cited much higher numbers, albeit over a lot longer time)

While the Arts are not so much a public good, the military is.

 

[Van Basten]

While the Arts are not so much a public good, the military is.

Of course the arts are a public good, what is wrong with you?

I think we need to look at our much more expensive programs before we take the axe to stuff that won't make a meaningful difference, even apart from being a strong defender for the arts. We should have top-quality museums, libraries, educational broadcasting, educational radio, etc. We can afford it and the arts are good.

I would not fund the man screaming on the floor exhibit, however, because **** that, that's why.



For example, I certainly agree we should remain very strong militarily, but we outspend all our potential enemies and a lot of allies combined by a long shot.

But do we really need another 10% thrown at it, when the probability of getting into a superpower v. superpower war is tiny and would likely end up with people slinging nukes until we're all dead anyway? Meanwhile, we can't kill all the terrorists even while spending $600,000,000,000/year. Sooooooo......why increase military spending if we're running such big deficits? ISIS doesn't give a ****, and our big enemies are already deterred from direct conflict.

Makes me gag to think of balking at $400mil for the arts while dropping another $60b or so on extra air carriers and more things that go PEW PEW PEW. This is especially true when you have various reports of the Pentagon burying tremendous amounts of waste. I mean, we're going to spend THAT much more on the military and then something less than 1% in size is the problem?

ie, Pentagon Reportedly Buried Study Exposing $125 Billion in Waste | Military.com

(I don't know the source but do know I saw various similar reports from credible sources in the past, and really don't want to sit here at the computer much longer. One cited much higher numbers, albeit over a lot longer time)

Slashing the NEA has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, that's just the pretext.

 

[Mr Person]

Slashing the NEA has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, that's just the pretext.

Indeed.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

I'm OK with funding arts if it's actual art in museums or libraries. Propping up television or radio broadcasts is NOT "funding the arts." It's "publicly funding people to run a broadcast."

Those who pay the bills own the goods. PBS and NPR are practically "government media" outlets.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

The main reason that Trump and his cult members want to yank funding for the arts is to curb free speech.

 

[ocean515]

The solution to funding the Arts is called ticket sales, or product sales.

Nothing else is required.

 

[VanceMack]

I think we need to look at our much more expensive programs before we take the axe to stuff that won't make a meaningful difference, even apart from being a strong defender for the arts. We should have top-quality museums, libraries, educational broadcasting, educational radio, etc. We can afford it and the arts are good.

I would not fund the man screaming on the floor exhibit, however, because **** that, that's why.



For example, I certainly agree we should remain very strong militarily, but we outspend all our potential enemies and a lot of allies combined by a long shot.

But do we really need another 10% thrown at it, when the probability of getting into a superpower v. superpower war is tiny and would likely end up with people slinging nukes until we're all dead anyway? Meanwhile, we can't kill all the terrorists even while spending $600,000,000,000/year. Sooooooo......why increase military spending if we're running such big deficits? ISIS doesn't give a ****, and our big enemies are already deterred from direct conflict.

Makes me gag to think of balking at $400mil for the arts while dropping another $60b or so on extra air carriers and more things that go PEW PEW PEW. This is especially true when you have various reports of the Pentagon burying tremendous amounts of waste. I mean, we're going to spend THAT much more on the military and then something less than 1% in size is the problem?

ie, Pentagon Reportedly Buried Study Exposing $125 Billion in Waste | Military.com

(I don't know the source but do know I saw various similar reports from credible sources in the past, and really don't want to sit here at the computer much longer. One cited much higher numbers, albeit over a lot longer time)

We could buildup the military without raising the budget just by eliminating waste. The contracting process and weapons system development is a joke. We could do a lot more joint basing. Preserve and enhance the warfighter...cuts via attrition...lots of change opportunities.

 

[VanceMack]

The main reason that Trump and his cult members want to yank funding for the arts is to curb free speech.

Dood...thats just stupid. Why would you bother typing something that makes you look so ****ing bad? Meanwhile Facebook, Yahoo, Google...all liberal owned, liberal backing organizations are doing the very thing you say Trump wants to do and you wont say a ****ing thing.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Dood...thats just stupid. Why would you bother typing something that makes you look so ****ing bad? Meanwhile Facebook, Yahoo, Google...all liberal owned, liberal backing organizations are doing the very thing you say Trump wants to do and you wont say a ****ing thing.

Facebook, Yahoo, and Google are private companies, "dood." Your comparison of these companies to the US government is beyond stoopid.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm mixed on the whole funding for the arts thing. I do see a value in some of the PBS broadcasting but think others can and should be self sustaining. Take Sesame Street for example. They are a commercial juggernaut worth about $400,000,000.00. Why do they need public funding? And since there are so many rules regarding the airwaves and cable/satellite companies, couldnt the providers be required to provide public access channels? Couldnt the equipment used to record and broadcast be donated and funded via private charity? And if they responsibly show a bottom line that is still deficit, then the State (first) or fed (as a last resort) could kick in operating cash.

Conversely...how much of THIS kind of **** gets public funding?

Modern Art: Man screaming for 2.5 hours

Granted....thats Serbia...but we have the same kind of publicly funded inane performance art in America. Performing Arts should be funded locally...with money budgeted and paid for by the local recipients.

I don't think I equate "PBS" with "The Arts".

 

[Captain Adverse]

How's about doing it old school...finding wealthy patrons willing to support whatever it is one's "art" entails?

Meanwhile, starve for your "art" while working at Starbucks or Wal-Mart to pay the bills. :coffeepap:

 

[Helix]

i'd much rather see tax dollars spent on the arts and public broadcasting than on some dip****ted plan to to start a new worldwide nuclear arms race.

 

[VanceMack]

I don't think I equate "PBS" with "The Arts".

I do. It all fits under the same umbrella IMO.

 

[VanceMack]

How's about doing it old school...finding wealthy patrons willing to support whatever it is one's "art" entails?

Meanwhile, starve for your "art" while working at Starbucks or Wal-Mart to pay the bills. :coffeepap:

I think funding for 'Arts' should be art programs, museums...etc...but NOT directly to artists. Ever. If your work is good, people will buy it nd you are an artist. If your work sucks, people wont buy it and you are the equivalent of my 7 year old granddaughter.

 

[Praxas]

I think funding for 'Arts' should be art programs, museums...etc...but NOT directly to artists. Ever. If your work is good, people will buy it nd you are an artist. If your work sucks, people wont buy it and you are the equivalent of my 7 year old granddaughter.

Meanwhile you are ok with money being wasted on the f-35 and increasing nuclear arms and you think that's not a waste.

 

[Mycroft]

I do. It all fits under the same umbrella IMO.

I thought it was about sports.

Sports[edit]
Many PBS member stations and networks – including Mississippi Public Broadcasting, Georgia Public Broadcasting, Maine Public Broadcasting Network, Nebraska Educational Telecommunications and WKYU-TV – locally broadcast high school and college sports. From the 1980s onward, the national PBS network has not typically carried sporting events, mainly because the broadcast rights to most sporting events have become more cost-prohibitive in that timeframe, especially for nonprofits with limited revenue potential; in addition, starting with the respective launches of the MountainWest Sports Network (now defunct) and Big Ten Network in 2006 and 2007 and the later launches of the Pac-12 Network and ESPN's SEC Network, athletic conferences have acquired rights for all of their member university's sports programs for their cable channels, restricting their use from PBS member stations, even those associated with their own universities.

From 1976 to 1988, KQED produced a series of Bundesliga matches under the banner Soccer Made in Germany, with Toby Charles announcing. PBS also carried tennis events,[26] as well as Ivy League football. Notable football commentators included Upton Bell, Marty Glickman, Bob Casciola, Brian Dowling, Sean McDonough and Jack Corrigan.[27] Other sports programs included interview series such as The Way It Was and The Sporting Life.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS#Sports

 

[VanceMack]

Meanwhile you are ok with money being wasted on the f-35 and increasing nuclear arms and you think that's not a waste.

You know precisely **** about me or what my positions are on the F-35. Stop making yourself look stupid. If you would like to actually have an intelligent dialogue about that...go find someone to carry your half of the discussion and ask me.

 

[joG]

Of course the arts are a public good, what is wrong with you?



Slashing the NEA has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, that's just the pretext.

In what way are they a public good?

 

[tres borrachos]

Dood...thats just stupid. Why would you bother typing something that makes you look so ****ing bad? Meanwhile Facebook, Yahoo, Google...all liberal owned, liberal backing organizations are doing the very thing you say Trump wants to do and you wont say a ****ing thing.

Facebook, Yahoo and Google are all public companies. They are not "liberal owned".

 

[americanwoman]

In what way are they a public good?

For instance, museums are great for the public good. They provide education and expose you to things to might never see otherwise. Low admission cost or even free are good benefits so as many people possible can attend as possible. You can see that whenever a museum has a free weekend, how many people really want to go but maybe don't always have the money to get in.

 

[VanceMack]

Facebook, Yahoo and Google are all public companies. They are not "liberal owned".

Really? So...Mark Zuckerberg doesnt run Facebook? There arent people that control content and dictate direction? Yahoo isnt run by a CEO and doesnt have a board of directors dictating content and process (before and after the sale of the Yahoo to Verizon is completed)?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

While the Arts are not so much a public good, the military is.

To a point, yes. Beyond that the only ones who benefit are military/industrial complex and pork hungry politicians.

 

[calamity]

I'm mixed on the whole funding for the arts thing. I do see a value in some of the PBS broadcasting but think others can and should be self sustaining. Take Sesame Street for example. They are a commercial juggernaut worth about $400,000,000.00. Why do they need public funding? And since there are so many rules regarding the airwaves and cable/satellite companies, couldnt the providers be required to provide public access channels? Couldnt the equipment used to record and broadcast be donated and funded via private charity? And if they responsibly show a bottom line that is still deficit, then the State (first) or fed (as a last resort) could kick in operating cash.

Conversely...how much of THIS kind of **** gets public funding?

Modern Art: Man screaming for 2.5 hours

Granted....thats Serbia...but we have the same kind of publicly funded inane performance art in America. Performing Arts should be funded locally...with money budgeted and paid for by the local recipients.

You do bring up a valid point. PBS has several valuable entities: SS, Nova, Newshour, Downton Abbey, Masterpiece Theater, just to name a few. If they sold the rights to one or two of those, they could probably fund their other stuff with the proceeds for at least a decade.